01.11.20
Posted in Bill Gates at 11:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Show me who your friends are, and I will tell you what you are.” (Sometimes attributed to Vladimir Lenin; many other quotes exist to that same effect)
Summary: Bill Gates and his poor taste in friends has not escaped the attention of his critics (and his father’s critics); the Saudi ties certainly merit a closer look because they’re rarely explored in mainstream media (except in the form of congratulatory puff pieces)
BILL GATES and his connection to the Saudi regime has been noted here multiple times over the years for well over a decade. It’s not a secret relationship. The above is one of many photo ops of Gates and MbS (he has many more photo ops with other members of that authoritarian family). That’s not really the point though; had we invested more time in it, we would be able to line up literally hundreds of photo ops of Gates with many Saudi ‘officials’ (they’re not elected, it’s just an oppressive, West-leaning dynasty with roots in the partitioning of the Middle East for oil extraction — once discovered in the religion, soon to be exploited and later shipped through Suez). Saudi Arabia derives it financial power from fossil fuel power (energy/oil) and almost nothing else. Tourism in Mecca (pilgrimage) is a drop in the ocean — or the metaphorical oil well — in comparison. Let’s not dwell over politics in the religion; there’s much to be said about brutality in Yemen, beheading of women/atheists, assassinations overseas (of dissidents and journalists) and so much more. In recent years a lot of these issues receive belated media attention, whereupon Saudi Arabia started paying off athletes and so-called ‘influencers’ to improve the country’s image (sportswashing, music festivals, fake equality and staged feminism). We won’t even talk any further about hard drug use by the royal family (Wikileaks exposed material on that a decade back, there were also arrests for smuggling by top officials), child marriage, pedophilia and so on. The drug use may be strictly “haram” (not that the royals truly follow their own religion), unlike the latter. That seems more suitable a subject for Daily Links, where we’ve already included literally hundreds if not thousands of stories on the subject. It’s already becoming ‘too political’ a subject and we want to focus not on partisan debates (like age of sexual and marital consent) but on more unique and distinct (or unexplored) aspects.
MbS is one of many in power; it’s like a family business. Either you’re it in or you’re not. It’s really that simple. There are no political challengers, maybe just competition within the family (vying for the crowd). A few years ago there was a death, there was a successor (for the crown) and then there’s the well known connection between Saudi Prince Alwaleed and Bill Gates (we wrote about that more than a decade ago). “Another Saudi notable,” a reader told us recently, is “Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman [who] met with Trump in the US and with Gates 10 days later.”
I don’t share this reader’s suspicion that pedophilia had anything to do with it, but for what it’s worth the reader said: “I think it’s worth noting these meetings as there was likely other things discussed like how they’re going to get away with their crimes against children enterprise.”
The reader cites this post from Seattle which said “The Saudi Crown Prince’s motorcade on the move in the Seattle area. Right now Mohammed bin Salman just arrived at Bill Gates’ home. Police are warning about traffic slowdowns throughout the Puget Sound region.”
And days apart: “President Donald Trump holds a meeting in the Oval Office with Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman.”
Only about a decade ago (under Obama) we took note of similar things. The Chinese leader, for example, upon his rare voyage to the US decided to visit almost nobody but Gates and the US President. People complained about this at the time. Is Gates like a de facto deputy in leadership? Remember that John Podesta suggested Bill Gates as Vice President under Hillary Clinton. We’ve long known this owing to verified leaks (published by Wikileaks from Podesta’s inbox).
As our reader correctly notes (we wrote about it many years ago): “Gates is a part owner in the Four Seasons of the Mandalay Bay with Saudi Prince Alwaleed. Gates and Alwaleed have a history.”
Four Seasons is a Bill Gates- and Saudi-owned hotel. The Saudi-Gates business and personal relations definitely merit further investigations, but some routes of exploration may lead us astray.
The reader, who strictly prefers to remain anonymous, spent a lot of time exploring the whole “population control” issue (it’s no secret that the father of Bill Gates is closely connected to it), partly because in a PBS interview Bill Gates said: “When I was growing up, my parents were almost involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that. And so it’s fascinating. At the dinner table my parents are very good at sharing the things that they were doing. And almost treating us like adults, talking about that.”
Gates himself said “[m]y dad was head of Planned Parenthood.” I myself am not against Planned Parenthood, but some people are. And anyway, whether one is for or against Planned Parenthood isn’t the key point.
“The guy joined his “giving pledge” and has been funneling millions into Gates’s vaccine programs,” our reader said about Alwaleed. “He’s also invested in “assisted reproductive technology.” If you follow the Gates vaccine/population agenda you will know how much of a racket the Foundation really is. He’s obsessed with “population issues.” (population control). Alwaleed was arrested (placed on palace arrest) a couple years ago and Gates came out in the media defending him. It’s unknown (to me) what the arrest was over but I suspect it was over a privately negotiated agreement through the Trump administration and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman or King Salman. A power change.”
The assumption here is that practice of pedophilia (different laws in Wahhabism). Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin once said (December 2017) that “[t]he tendency to ignore it is magnified when religious officials are the ones committing the atrocities, as the behavior reflects badly not only on the perpetrators themselves, but has the potential to damage Islam’s reputation.”
Such views are often suppressed as ‘hateful’ irrespective of the underlying facts, which may not be convenient. And yes, by all means it’s a problem among clergy in other monotheistic religions — that too should be a permissible topic.
Taking all this into account, it is possible that Gates was — either as observer or ‘in the know’ (not a participant) — witnessing issues pertaining to pedophilia. It’s hardly unthinkable that some of his friends and allies — not only Epstein — were rather upfront and frank about it. Gates maintained his close ties to Epstein after he had been trialled, convinced and even arrested.
Our reader went on and pointed out the so-called “Mandalay Bay” ‘hotel’, which became well known or notorious just over a couple of years ago and became almost synonymous with human ‘shooting range’. To quote Wikipedia: “One of the property’s towers operates as the Delano; the Four Seasons Hotel is independently operated within the Mandalay Bay tower, occupying five floors (35–39). Mandalay Bay has 3,209 hotel rooms, 24 elevators and a casino of 135,000 square feet (12,500 m2).”
“Back to Four Seasons,” our reader noted, there’s this old article from NBC News entitled “Vegas Gunman Stephen Paddock’s Brother Arrested in Child Porn Probe”. To quote:
The estranged brother of Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock was arrested Wednesday on child pornography charges stemming from an investigation that predates the massacre.
Bruce Paddock, 58, was detained at a Los Angeles assisted-living facility, where he was awaiting surgery for spinal stenosis. A felony complaint said he had over 600 explicit images of minors in 2014 and had also swapped pornography.
He faces 19 counts of sexual exploitation of a child and one count of possession of child pornography, the complaint says. He was being held on $60,000 bond.
The LAPD said the images were discovered inside a building where Paddock was squatting, but they could not find him at the time. After his brother’s crime, they learned where he was and obtained a warrant, police said.
An attorney who Paddock said had represented him in criminal matters in the past told NBC News he is no longer representing him and declined to comment.
Another brother, Eric Paddock, who lives in Florida, said he had no comment on the arrest.
This case was with LAPD at the time. There’s probably no connection to either Gates or the Saudi regime, but it’s worth noting who owned that building and what Bruce Paddock did (not related to that building which his brother used to massacre an unprecedented number of people, injuring 869 people (413 by direct gunfire) and fatally shooting 58 other than himself).
Nihilist ‘death cults’ tend to indulge in death, vengeance and sometimes abuse of youngsters. Why would Gates wish to associate and be ‘all smiles’ with MbS? And the same for Epstein, whom he visited in prison. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception at 5:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Transparency is a cherished concept in a free, law-abiding and democratic society, but only if principles are obeyed even when it’s inconvenient to do so
“To be fair Seattle PD are useless,” someone told me yesterday. “I know a guy who tried to report some obvious theft and property crime and the cops told him only the store or owner of the property can report the crime and the damage must exceed $1000 for them to take any action. Then they told him if he doesn’t like it vote in a different city council next election…” (So they serve and protect the wealthy only)
Summary: Seattle’s Police Department (PD) has a bit of a reputation or notoriety for making it hard to get service (unless one is well connected) and transparency services are overseen by a former officer of the U.S. Navy (notorious for secrecy and vengeance against those who disclose evidence of high-level crimes, e.g. Wikileaks)
● Is Washington’s Public Records Law Being Abused By Seattle?
In Seattle, requesting public records can give rise to a zombie process that drags on for months or years. (Patch file photo/Neal McNamara)
Three years ago, Seattle resident Michael Maddux attended a virtual town hall hosted by the Seattle police through the app NextDoor. As he watched his neighbors ask police questions, he wondered how NextDoor and the police department coordinated the event.
So, he filed a public records request. He asked Seattle police for any record about planning or contact between the department and NextDoor. He filed the request on Feb 19, 2016, hoping to use the material for his blog, The Hashtag.
As of March 8, 2019, he still hasn’t received all the information. The department has dripped out 20 different installments so far — the 21st will apparently arrive soon.
“To date, SPD has missed every self-imposed deadline, and for a while they actually forgot about my [request] and were alerted via a tweet I sent that I hadn’t received an installment in months,” he said in an email recently.
Maddux’s experience is extreme, but it illustrates an issue Seattle has with records requests. Information sometimes comes in seemingly unending installments, turning requests into public records zombies that slouch forward one monthly step at a time.
● Mary Perry Joins Seattle Police Department as Director of Transparency and Privacy
The Seattle Police Department welcomes Mary Perry as Director of Transparency and Privacy. This is a new position with SPD as part of its re-organization of public disclosure response and enhanced compliance processes. In this role, Perry will oversee public disclosure and direct the department’s efforts to proactively provide data and information to the public.
Perry has worked with the City of Seattle for more than 10 years. She began serving with the City’s Law Department in 2005 as an Assistant City Attorney in the Municipal Law Section, where she focused on public records issues and compliance.
Chief Kathleen O’Toole remarks, “I am absolutely committed to finding the right balance between transparency and privacy to ensure as much visibility into police operations without compromising the very legitimate privacy concerns of victims, people in crisis, or others that reach out to the police at their most vulnerable time. Mary has a proven track record and deep understanding of this balance and I am thrilled that she is coming on board to coordinate and drive our transparency efforts.”
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The attitude of patent offices that measure their performance in terms like number of monopolies signed off leads to retardation of science, but they couldn’t care any less, they just change their messaging or marketing (buzzwords can help, e.g. “intelligence” and “revolution”)
European Patent Office (EPO) President António Campinos boasts ‘growth’… (as Battistelli did)
The Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) likewise…
But a growth in what?
Talent pool?
“What exactly are they measuring?”Quality standards?
Satisfaction rates (staff and applicants)?
What exactly are they measuring?
If the EPO can flagrantly violate the EPC, then it can grant a million or a billion patents a day? If not enough applicants exist, write some computer programs to automatically generate applications.
Then… brag about ‘growth’.
A growth in number of applications…
“If 99% of those granted patents are denied or dismissed by the courts, should the patent offices worry?”A growth in number of patents…
After all, handing over some piece of paper corresponding to a monopoly isn’t too expensive, is it?
Unlike court costs.
If 99% of those granted patents are denied or dismissed by the courts, should the patent offices worry?
As the old saying goes, “not my department!”
Nowadays, the EPO is shameless about granting software patents in Europe. It even told examiners that if an applicant mentions “AI”, then it’s a very special thing. They formulated this nonsense in the examiners’ guidelines two months ago. They actually have buzzwords and weasel words inside formal guidelines. Maybe later this year they’ll issue new guidelines about patents with “smart” in them, with “app” in them, with "assistant" in them…
“It’s very relevant because “4IR” is a buzzphrase that the EPO actually paid the media to promote (convenient way to bribe media which previously criticised the EPO’s management).”If “4IR” is a ‘thing’, why not?
It’s very relevant because “4IR” is a buzzphrase that the EPO actually paid the media to promote (convenient way to bribe media which previously criticised the EPO’s management).
Nowadays WIPO constantly promotes the ridiculous “HEY HI” (AI) hype because they want machines to help generate loads of monopolies, creating further chaos that only lawyers will profit from. They also promote software patents under the guise of the same buzzword while law firms are promoting their nonsense from their own site (“Artificial Intelligence (AI) Patents – Will the Patent Office Change the Rules?”; found via Janal Kalis) as recently as days ago. Watch the “HEY HI” (AI) hype again being misused to promote bunk abstract patents that courts continue to throw out, citing 35 U.S.C. § 101 a lot of the time (sometimes obviousness or prior art, instead or in conjunction). Here they go with a buzzwords and hype wave braindump:
The number of patents for inventions based on artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning continues to grow rapidly. Some of these inventions relate to AI technology per se, and some relate to the use of AI in specific applications, including many in healthcare, financial services and blockchain, among other industries. The USPTO has addressed various aspects of intellectual property issues with these technologies in various ways, including in an event it hosted entitled “Artificial Intelligence: Intellectual Property Policy Considerations (January 2019).” Due to some of the unique issues with these technologies, the USPTO is considering whether it should make any changes to how it handles examination of these applications. As part of this analysis, the USPTO issued a request for public comments on protection and examination of these inventions. Last fall, the USPTO issued a Federal Register Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. 166 (Aug. 27, 2019) entitled, “Request for Comments on Patenting Artificial Intelligence Inventions.” Soon after, the USPTO issued another Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. 210 (Oct. 30, 2019) entitled, “Request for Comments on Intellectual Property Protection for Artificial Intelligence Innovation,” which expanded the scope of its inquiry (from just AI patents) to further cover copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property rights impacted by AI. In a third notice, the PTO extended the comment period until January 10, 2020.
That’s yesterday. How many of these granted patents would withstand a challenge in court? What proportion? And at what level? If only 10% of these stand a chance at the Federal Circuit or even at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), does that mean that real ‘production’ of the Office is an order of magnitude lower?
Going back to the EPO, yesterday it tweeted:
What can you patent in biotech?
It takes too much time/space to tackle — here or elsewhere — mere “tweets” or so-called ‘tweets’ (they're a dime a dozen and not journalism; the EPO does about 50 of them per week).
“It seems rather clear that here in Europe and also in the US the patent offices are given the freedom/liberty to just grant lots of legally-invalid patents, even if just to fake ‘growth’ at times of economic pressures if not depression. Those who benefit the most are companies valued at more than the total GDP of entire countries, at the expense of SMEs that cordially employ and respect their staff.”When the value of a company depends on some monopoly from the EPO, as in this new case of Auris Medical (new press release and report [1, 2]), that does not necessarily mean such patents are desirable. There are ramifications for competitors. It seems rather clear that here in Europe and also in the US the patent offices are given the freedom/liberty to just grant lots of legally-invalid patents, even if just to fake ‘growth’ at times of economic pressures if not depression. Those who benefit the most are companies valued at more than the total GDP of entire countries, at the expense of SMEs that cordially employ and respect their staff. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 1:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Antithetical to science and to fact-finding, an insult to the concepts of democracy and separation of powers (private corporations and their unelected proxies as both executive and legislative branches)
The EPO is like a family business or the Mafia (in countries controlled by their underworld)
Summary: The EPO has let the mask slip off yet again, exposing itself or unmasking itself as little but an extension of Team UPC (i.e. a cabal of litigation firms, not scientists)
READERS of Techrights hurriedly contacted us yesterday regarding this typical late Friday fluff (warning: epo.org link) from European Patent Office (EPO) management or Team Campinos/Battistelli. It looked shallow on the surface and indeed it turned out to be just a statement on the subject of UPC, merely a “parade of suits”. No substance, only lies. Corrupt people do corrupt things and want to corrupt courts (to protect themselves), whereupon they strive to violate constitutions and so on…
“Corrupt people do corrupt things and want to corrupt courts (to protect themselves), whereupon they strive to violate constitutions and so on…”So okay… what was actually said there? The summary (below the shallow headline/title) states: “António Campinos, President of the European Patent Office (EPO), and his team met today with the Chair and members of the executive group of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Preparatory Committee, as well as with the Chair of the Unitary Patent Select Committee, to take stock of the state of play of the preparations to implement the Unitary Patent package.”
So they had… a meeting! Wow. Shocking. That Team UPC is in bed with the EPO (one might say steers the EPO) is hardly a secret. This coup goes quite some time back. Also notice some of the people named there; they’re indebted to Battistelli, for reasons we mentioned before. Aside from loud proponents of software patents in Europe we seem to be seeing rather openly corrupt officials and now they want to enforce/impose their corrupt and illegal acts on the court system, too.
“That Team UPC is in bed with the EPO (one might say steers the EPO) is hardly a secret.”Will they get it? Naaaa… incredibly unlikely. They know it themselves (deep inside they’ve nearly given up), but they fake positivity and enthusiasm. It’s their lobbying strategy.
The EPO then tweeted : “EPO President Campinos: “We are confident that the necessary steps can be accomplished in time for the Unitary Patent package to become operational at the end of 2020.” More on today’s meeting on the status of the preparations of the #UnitaryPatent here: https://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2020/20200110.html …”
This was “liked” by CIPA and others (the ‘usual suspects’).
“…they want to enforce/impose their corrupt and illegal acts on the court system, too.”So I responded (which I rarely do directly, i.e. in direct response form): “There’s not much to be said about ‘unitary’ patents and EPO granting any as nothing actually happened but a photo op, a group photo op, with text to accompany the lobby. The usual nonsense. This is the first time in a long time something is said about the subject and they may have dragged into people who aren’t even associated with it just to give fictional scale, an illusion of broad support…”
It didn’t take long for Benjamin Henrion to respond separately and independently: “CJEU won’t have a say on patent law, how foolish is that?”
He had elsewhere stated: “If no-CJEU is Boris redline, i wonder how it plays with biotech patents and the UPC London court, where the CJEU has the last word.”
Of course they don’t wish to talk about CJEU; it’s one of several elephants inside their room.
“Of course they don’t wish to talk about CJEU; it’s one of several elephants inside their room.”I later pointed out “the law does not exist in today's EPO. It’s violated as a matter of routine. They moreover have kangaroo courts to justify Battistelli's illegal acts and media is being bribed to not report on that. [...] JUVE reported that the number of applications decreases and all the good examiners are leaving or have left. Institutions die when the people who run them abandon.”
Ask EPO insiders. They know it. They’re aware. They admit it. They’re rightly concerned. SUEPO’s “January 2020 press articles” (posted yesterday or thereabouts) has in it “The 10 most popular articles in 2019: EPO guidelines, EPO unrest, SPCs and UPC” (Kluwer Patent Blog).
“Ask EPO insiders. They know it. They’re aware. They admit it. They’re rightly concerned.”Ulf Leckel and other cheerleaders for the litigation agenda ended up copying the ridiculous headline of the EPO (“The EPO and representatives from EU Member States call for the speedy implementation of the Unitary Patent package”), which isn’t just assertive but also somewhat delusional.
Delusion you say?
Yup.
Over at Kluwer Patent Blog, “Kluwer Patent blogger” (usually Bristows) said that “[t]he meeting made it clear that the EPO is ready to register the first Unitary Patents and that the Preparatory Committee has advanced its work as far as possible.”
Delusional much?
“What on Earth has happened to the EPO? It’s behaving like a government of a very primitive and brutal country.”Team UPC has quoted from that: “Maybe Campinos, Ramsay, Debrûlle wanted to convey a message of hope to supporters of the UP system, but leaving out any reference to these 2 elephants in the room will not help to convince that the UP & Unified Patent Court will really start functioning at the end of this year.”
So even Team UPC is aware that it’s unrealistic. First comment quotes: “Our users – and in particular SMEs – will strongly benefit from it because it will make Europe more competitive in relation to the United States and Asia.”
The commenter said it “reminds me of “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.” Honestly, how on earth could the UPC be beneficial to SMEs? Do these people really believe that nonsense? I can imagine the UPC to benefit quite a few parties, but the SMEs are not among them to be sure.”
Jan Van Hoey then said: “After Brexit, the AETR caselaw will kick in. AETR was used during the EPLA discussions to legally exclude non-EU member states like Switzerland. Italy should use the AETR to reclaim the London court in Milan. And this EPO and other NPO press release looks like “We want the unitary renewal fees in our pockets”. The UK cannot stay in UPC, it has to be renegotiated so that art6-8 (supremacy of the CJEU) is reestablished.”
As Henrion told me (quoting the above or paraphrasing): “the latest EPO article on UPC can be seen as “UPC will give us renewal fees in our pockets”..”
“It’s totally embarrassing and it tarnishes Europe’s image.”These people are totally insane and corrupt. They crush our laws and constitutions for money.
What will they tell us on January 31st? For at least 13 years they've told us that UPC was just around the corner (consider this article from 7 years ago, as it did not age well, under the headline “The unitary patent: coming soon to a European country near you”)
Define “soon”…
Aside from the delusional press release and tweet from the EPO we saw (on Friday) more greenwashing and other tweets that are lies, myths, bluff and fluff, decorated with wind power photos (stock photography for greenwashing). What on Earth has happened to the EPO? It’s behaving like a government of a very primitive and brutal country. It’s totally embarrassing and it tarnishes Europe’s image. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA